DUBEY BUILDERS AND INDUSTRIES Vs. BIRDH RAJ BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, there is challenge to order dated 21st November, 1992, passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. Vide impugned order, application under Order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as "Code") filed by appellants was dismissed.

(2.) Respondent herein, filed suit for possession and mandatory injunction against the appellants. Initially, suit was contested by appellants who filed their written statements. On 20th November, 1991, matter was adjourned to 6th February, 1992 for arguments on injunction application as well as for documents, admission/denial and issues. On that day only counsel for respondent appeared, while none was present on behalf of appellants. After waiting till 2.30 P.M., appellants were proceeded ex parte. Vide judgment, dated 30th March, 1992, suit was decreed ex parte, in favour of respondent. On 6th May, 1992, appellants filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, for setting aside ex parte decree dated 30th March, 1992. After recording evidence, trial court dismissed the application.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that appellants are resident of Jammu and their earlier counsel did not inform them about the date of hearing. When appellant came to Delhi, on contacting his advocate, he came to know that matter has already been decided ex parte against them. Appellant engaged another counsel and thereafter, filed the present application. The counsel noted wrong date and did not inform them.